The Backlash! - February 1996

The Truth About Feminism

Copyright Men International, Inc., 1988

In early 1988 MS. Magazine described me as an
"extremist" and I suppose that this editorial will be sufficient to prove the point to
some of the more radical feminists. The subject is the bashing of men, and
specifically fathers by feminist rhetoric.

The difficulty is that from our view much of the rhetoric (read polemics) of today's
feminism is a simple replay of every classic propaganda technique known to the
human race. This includes scapegoating, glittering generalities, half truths and the
BIG lie! Feminist success at pawning off the biggest line of trash is a subject of
immense concern to us as men and supposedly as spokesmen of sorts for the male
gender.

It is distressing to see discussion of sensitive subjects in such absolute terms. Of
course it helps to understand the frame of reference of the speaker of the statistics,
to understand the definitions they are using so one can judge better the accuracy or
import of what is being said. As feminist authors such as Susan Brownmiller make
the claim that all men will rape a woman during their lives, one needs to
understand the current feminist orientation to place it in context.

It may surprise a few people who know very little about feminism, even though
they may think they know more, that much of the leadership and formulators of
feminist ideology are avowed lesbians who hold, at least subconsciously that
all heterosexual contact is a form of rape. It is easier to understand with
such a broad definition how these people could say what they do and in their own
minds not be telling an untruth. In point of fact less than 2% of the male
population commits 100% of the rapes in America.

The same kind of misinformation permeates discussion of family violence in
America. While the highly charged emotionally manipulative "horror stories" are
paraded before the public, statistical information added to the discussion is at the
same time exaggerated and incomplete. This is true of many topics of feminism.
Exaggeration is a technique that feminism has over-worked. Our view is that the
real statistics are bad enough, exaggeration diminishes the problem and
trivializes the problems that are so real for so many victims.

As a father of 4 daughters I resent that. I resent that exaggeration of statistics and
encouragement of false reporting makes it harder on the real
victims. In domestic violence, not only has the incidence been over-estimated, but
feminists have shouted down discussion of violence by women against men. I
would refer the reader to the work of Dr. Suzzanne Steinmetz of the University of
Delaware whose work clearly shows that family violence is not the exclusive
province of the male gender by any reasonable distortion of fact. This work clearly
demonstrates that violence is equally a problem for both genders.

Perhaps the most annoying subject is the topic of child abuse. Here is where
misinformation has been masterfully manipulated by feminism. It has been known
for more than a decade that the majority of child abuse in America did not occur at
the hands of fathers, but indeed at the hands of single parent mothers (67.3%).
However much of what information comes out today nearly reverses those figures.
The intrusion of massively false data has sent many professions scurrying in the
wrong direction.

Nowhere is this more true than on the subject of child sexual abuse. It is also well
established that less than 2% (1.65 %) of sexual abuse of children is perpetrated by
the biological father. First most of what we define as sexual abuse is perpetrated
by siblings. The number 2 perpetrator, only a few percentage points behind, are
the step-fathers, boyfriends and male companions of single mothers.

In the later case the abuse occurs either with the direct participation of the mother
, her encouragement, or by her tacit acquiescence to it. All the rationalizations in
the world simply do not justify the position of those women. Feminist sources
have been established to have encouraged knowingly false allegations
against fathers in divorce cases to gain objectives such as better financial
settlements or more favorable custody and visitation schedules. This is a vicious
tactic one that we feel fits in well with the mean spirited temperament of modern
feminism under Eleanor Smeal.

This brings me to the subject of deadbeat dads. Golly, we have been
bombarded by statistics on this "National Disgrace". There is perhaps no subject
as full of manure as this. We have all head " U.S. Government figures show 5
Billion dollars in unpaid child support" in America. But do we know where these
numbers came from ? Did you know they came from the U.S. Bureau of Census?
Did you know how the Bureau (Feminist Branch) arrived at the numbers they
throw out? No? Not unless you have seen the documentation or read an obscure
part of the Congressional Record from 1983 Senate Hearings on Child Support.

The data comes from a questionnaire sent to 1.6 million single mothers
asking them if they got enough child support from the fathers. Survey methods are
among the most unreliable methods of data collection. They are if they are done
without a system of verification, which by the way, the Bureau did not employ.
We know this for a fact, in 1982 when there was a big push on income tax refund
interceptions to collect child support that in areas from which hard data is
available, that 33% of the cases were nakedly false. This represents the cases
where the amount was sufficient enough to get a father to protest and hire a
lawyer. This does not reflect other false cases where the amount was too small or
the father could not afford an attorney.

But let's look at the subject feminism does not want discussed. Let's look at a
couple of facts that will cause feminist amazons to choke and offer a string of
senseless rationalizations for. First, in the United States one child in four is
illegitimate ( 1 in 3 in Florida). Second, of those children born out-of-wedlock
more than 50% have birth certificates where the father is described as "unknown"!

If we compute the figures in any reasonable accounting system the whole child
support question deflates from its gigantic proportions to something pathetic, and
it points the accusing finger not at deadbeat dads but at deadbeat
moms who have a litter of kids with only a vague notion of which male might
be responsible for impregnation! In short, as truth would have it, we have a case
of the "pot calling the kettle back." I am totally disinterested in feminist
apologetics. I am tired of the feminist theory that women are never
responsible for anything negative.

To the feminists that may raid our board for "intelligence", let me say this to you.
All of the excuses you use to avoid responsibility for negative acts of women,
simply adds to the arguments that women are not responsible enough for important
posts. Think about it! Feminist argumentation treats women like mindless
children who have no free will or minds of their own, who are cowardly and afraid
to stand up. That is the conclusion that can be drawn from feminist
argumentation.

To illustrate how the feminist propaganda juggernaut works, let me give two
illustrations that should be good for some humor. Much as Josef Goebbels of
WW2 Germany so aptly perfected, the process of scapegoating is an effective tool
for political objectives. When you add into this situation, tactics again similar to
those of 50 years ago, we can see how views can be distorted. The best way to
promote false information is to find a believable spokesperson to tell the lie.

Let's work with the recent book of Dr. Lenorre Weitzman, The Divorce
Revolution. Weitzman is one of feminism's largest Valkyries. Her activism is
long standing but little known. Weitzman's book maintains the absurd premise that
while women's economic position suffers by 42% following a divorce, a man's
actually improves by 73% . I am often amazed at how widely accepted this non-
sense has become.

Only a moron or simpleton would accept such a preposterous premise. How many
accountants or lawyers do you know that would advise a young man to get a
divorce as a way of getting ahead in life??? This preposterous premise is a highly
emotional one that gets women to say 'Right- on." But few people familiar with
the divorce process believe it. Weitzman's premise leaves so much out of her
mathematics that it proves the old say that "figures don't lie, but liars do figure"!
Weitzman's accounting system was entirely self-serving to be overly kind.

Lenorre Weitzman's book comes into better perspective when taken into account
along with fellow feminist Dr. Phyllis Chesler's book, Mothers On Trial
which maintains the idiotic position that women are widely discriminated against in
child custody cases. Chesler shrugs off the fact that 92% of custody awards are to
mothers. Chesler bemoans the 4% of custody awards to fathers which she claims is
way too large. How much too large?

Well, based on her study of 64 cases (which is about all she could find in the entire
nation covering a 10 year period) she says that father custody should be
completely eliminated. Chesler could find no reason that a father should ever gain
custody of his children. Her recent appearances on Donahue and the Sally show
on behalf of run-away mothers belie her statements about "Primary Caretakers"
being any real issue. Chesler, it seems hold that custody awards must be on the
basis of who has spent the most time with the children, unless it was the father,
then she frantically searches for another rationalization.

Lenorre Weitzman on the other hand has some interesting conclusions of her own
in her book. Sifting through the verbiage, Weitzman concludes that even if courts
were to award a woman all of the assets of the marriage (including pre-
existing assets ) (special equity assets) and all of the man's future income, it
would not be fair to her. Her premise goes further, that even if the court ordered
the husband to work 3 Full-Time jobs and awarded her all of that income
tax-free, the woman would still be getting screwed! Of course, I am not using her
words. But I am accurate as to the net of her statements and conclusions.

Naturally Weitzman is torn between her position of not wanting Fault to be
a consideration, and the need to "Justify" such draconian punishment of men.
Even Weitzman has some dim realization of how ludicrous her position is. Greed
is a wonderful thing , isn't it? I must point out for the uninformed reader that
Lenorre Weitzman was one of those rabid Femagogues who burned their Bra's
outside the state capitol in Sacramento, California demanding "No-Fault
Divorce" as a way to improve women's share of the opt in divorce. Weitzman has
concluded that 50% of everything wasn't enough even when the woman
didn't deserve the first penny.

It has been feminists like Weitzman and Smeal that have reduced marriage to a
economic enterprise or occupation they are attempting to unionize. In doing so
love, tenderness and human feelings of a positive nature fly out the window. Is it
any wonder that American bedrooms have become armed combat zones?

If you scratch me hard enough you might even hear me say that, yes, I believe that
fault divorce or at least some modification of it, should be brought back. The bad
or capricious spouse should not profit. After all, marriage is a civil contract. What
good is a contract, any contract, if one party can breach the contract in bad
faith and automatically profit from it while the person who kept it is punished?
It makes a joke of contracts, and a comedy of the legal system.

In any social situation, when a segment of the society loses its incentive for proper
behavior, or as in this case, receives automatic reward for negative acts, is the
result anything but inevitable? Look at the state of the family today. Then take
another look at the absurd argumentation of today's feminism. You judge!

Excuse me for getting in one last jab. Today's feminism, at least at the top, is
dominated by the most radical elements of the lesbian culture, the most hateful of
men. You can add this into this equation. I should not need to prove that
statement, I will if you'd like. It stands by itself as a statement of fact!